[¶1]
Orbitz, LLC challenges the Indiana Department of State
Revenue's assessments of Indiana sales and
innkeeper's taxes for the January 1, 2004, through
December 31, 2006, period (the "period at issue").
The matter is currently before the Court on the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment.[1] The Court restates the
dispositive issue as whether the Department erred in issuing
sales and innkeeper's tax assessments against Orbitz
based on the retail rather than the wholesale rate of Indiana
hotel rooms.[2] The Court finds in favor of Orbitz.

[¶3]
During the period at issue, one of the Orbitz regional market
managers traveled to Indiana to cultivate relationships with
hoteliers. (See Jt. Stip. ¶¶ 6-9.) The
regional market manager and the hoteliers subsequently
executed contracts that allowed Orbitz to provide its
services for several Indiana hotels in Allen, Clark, Floyd,
Harrison, Jefferson, Marion, Scott, and Shelby Counties (the
"Hotel Listing Agreements"). (See Jt.
Stip. ¶¶ 10, 19-23, Ex. 1.)

[¶4]
According to the terms of the Hotel Listing Agreements, the
hoteliers delegated to Orbitz some of their day-to-day
responsibilities, including certain marketing, tax
collecting, payment processing, reservation, and customer
service functions. (See Jt. Stip., Ex. 1
¶¶ 5-7.) The hoteliers also established wholesale
rates for the hotel rooms, agreed not to disclose the
wholesale rates to the public, and agreed to allow Orbitz to
charge customers at rates greater than the wholesale rates
when it facilitated pre-paid reservations. (See Jt.
Stip., Ex. 1 ¶ 5(a).) Orbitz, in turn, agreed to promote
the Indiana hotels on its website, to facilitate pre-paid
reservations for the hotels through its secure private
communications network (the "extranet"), and to
collect sales and innkeeper's taxes from customers based
on the wholesale rate of the hotel rooms alone
(i.e., the "tax recovery charge").
(See Jt. Stip., Ex. 1 ¶¶ 2, 5(a).)

1) Orbitz advertised Indiana hotels on its website; after the
customer selected a room to reserve and agreed to certain
policies, the following two separate charges were displayed
to the customer:

i. the "subtotal" (i.e., the "retail
rate") that consisted of the combined amount of the
wholesale rate and Orbitz's facilitation fee; and

ii. the "taxes and fees, " which reflected the
total of the tax recovery charge and Orbitz's additional
service fee;

2) Orbitz transmitted the customer's reservation request
to the hotel through the extranet; the hotel accepted the
reservation by sending Orbitz a confirmation number through
the extranet; Orbitz provided the confirmation number to the
customer and charged the customer's credit card for an
amount totaling the retail rate and the taxes and fees;
Orbitz was the merchant of record for the transaction;

3) the customer subsequently checked into the hotel and, upon
check-out, paid for incidental charges only (e.g.,
room ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.